Malankara Plantations Ltd V. The Inspecting Assistant Commissioner, Commercial Taxes, Kottayam and The Deputy Commissioner (Appeals) Department of Commercial Taxes, Ernakulam and The Inspecting Asst. Commissioner (RR) Commercial Taxes, Kottayam

WP(C)/4285/2014

AI Insights

The case involves M/S. Malankara Plantations Ltd, which contested the Agricultural Income Tax assessments for the years 2010-11 and 2011-12 imposed by the Inspecting Assistant Commissioner of Commercial Taxes, Kottayam. The petitioner challenged the disallowance of Rs. 1 crore in deductions, arguing that the first respondent lacked the authority to make such deductions, referencing decisions from the Supreme Court. The Deputy Commissioner (Appeals) had previously granted a conditional stay, requiring a 30% payment of the disputed amount. The petitioner sought a reduction in this deposit amount, which the court granted, reducing it to Rs. 20 lakhs.

• Counselvise Citation: [2014] 140 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 799139 (HC-KERALA)
• Appeal Type: Others
• Pronouncement Date: 12-02-2014
• Assessment Year: misc
• Other Referred Cases: Karimtharuvi Tea Estates Ltd. and another v. State of Kerala and others {48 ITR 83}
• Laws Referred To: Karimtharuvi Tea Estates Ltd. and another v. State of Kerala and others {48 ITR 83}
• Result in Favour of: Others
• Court: HIGH COURT
• Department Lawyers: SOBHA EAPEN
• Assessee Lawyers: V MARKOS; BINU MATHEW; TOM THOMAS; ABRAHAM MARKOS; ABRAHAM THARAKAN
• Keywords: Agricultural income-tax; Assessment; Conditional stay; Disallowance; Legal Authority
• Section: 147; 148; 143(3); 153A; 68

Judgement Text

"IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT: THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE K.SURENDRA MOHAN WEDNESDAY, THE 12TH DAY OF FEBRUARY 2014/23RD MAGHA, 1935 WP(C).No. 4285 of 2014 (I) --------------------------- PETITIONER: -------------- M/S. MALANKARA PLANTATIONS LTD MALANKARA BUILDINGS KODIMATHA (P.B NO 72) KOTTAYAM 686 039 REPRESENTED BY ITS MANAGING DIRECTOR MR. J.K THOMAS BY ADVS.SRI.V.ABRAHAM MARKOS SRI.BINU MATHEW SRI.TOM THOMAS (KAKKUZHIYIL) SRI.ABRAHAM JOSEPH MARKOS SRI.ABRAHAM VARGHESE THARAKAN RESPONDENTS: ------------------- 1. THE INSPECTING ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER, COMMERCIAL TAXES, KOTTAYAM 686 631 2. THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER(APPEALS) DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCIAL TAXES,ERNAKULAM 682 015 3. THE INSPECTING ASST.COMMISSIONER(RR) COMMERCIAL TAXES,KOTTAYAM 686 631 R BY GOVERNMENT PLEADER SMT.SOBHA ANNAMMA EAPEN THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 12-02-2014, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: WP(C).No. 4285 of 2014 (I) --------------------------- APPENDIX PETITIONER(S)' EXHIBITS ------------------------ EXHIBIT P1 TRUE COPY OF THE ASSESSMENT ORDER DATED 10-10-2013 PASSED BY THE 1ST RESPONDENT FOR THE ASSESSMENT YEAR 2011-12 EXHIBIT P2 TRUE COPY OF THE ASSESSMENT ORDER DATED 29-10-2012 PASSED BY THE 1ST RESPONDENT FOR THE ASSESSMENT YEAR 2010-11 EXHIBIT P3 TRUE COPY OF APPEAL DATED 21-11-2012 FILED BY THE PETITIONER BEFORE THE 2ND RESPONDENT FOR ASSESSMENT YEAR 2010-11 EXHIBIT P4 TRUE COPY OF APPEAL DATED 13-11-2013 FILED BY THE PETITIONER BEFORE THE 2ND RESPONDENT FOR ASSESSMENT YEAR 2011-12 EXHIBIT P5 TRUE COPY OF JUDGMENT DATED 2-1-2014 PASSED BY THIS HON'BLE COURT IN WPC NO 116/2014 EXHIBIT P6 TRUE COPY OF ORDER DATED 15-01-2014 PASSED BY THE 2ND RESPONDENT IN STAY PETITIONS FILED BY THE PETITIONER BEFORE THE 2ND RESPONDENT RESPONDENTS' EXHIBITS NIL ------------------------- JJ /TRUE COPY/ P.S.TO JUDGE K. SURENDRA MOHAN,J ------------------------------- W.P(C) NO. 4285 OF 2014 ---------------------------------- Dated this the 12th February, 2014. JUDGMENT The petitioner has been assessed to Agricultural Income Tax for the assessment years 2010-11 and 2011-12 by the first respondent. The petitioner disputes an amount of Rs.1 crore that has been disallowed contending that the first respondent has no authority to make the said deduction, in view of the decisions of the Hon'ble Supreme Court on the point. The petitioner has therefore challenged the assessment before the second respondent. As per Ext.P6, the petitioner has been granted a conditional order of stay. The petitioner is aggrieved by the condition imposed, which is to pay 30% of the amount demanded and to furnish adequate security for the balance amount to the satisfaction of the assessing authority within two weeks of the date of receipt of the order. WPC 4285/2014 2 2. The learned Senior Counsel Shri. Abraham Markose who appears for the petitioner places reliance on the decision of the Apex Court in Karimtharuvi Tea Estates Ltd. and another v. State of Kerala and others {48 ITR 83} to contend that the assessment is in violation of the dictum laid down therein. 3. Since the appeal is pending consideration of the second respondent, I do not propose to go into the said question at this stage. It is for the Appellate Authority to do so. According to the learned Govt. Pleader substantial relief has been granted to the petitioner and an interim order of stay has been granted on payment of 30% of the disputed amount. It is stated that the said condition is reasonable and not liable to be interfered with. According to the learned Senior Counsel since the assessment has been made after disallowing deductions in violation of dictum of the Hon'ble Supreme Court, the amount demanded is not liable to be paid WPC 4285/2014 3 by the petitioner and therefore he seeks a reduction in the amount that has been directed to be deposited. 4. Having considered the contentions of the learned Senior Counsel as well as the learned Govt. Pleader, I am satisfied that this is a case in which some reduction in the amount that has been directed to be deposited is necessary to be granted. Taking into account the sustainability of the contentions advanced before me, I am satisfied that the amount directed to be deposited is reduced to an amount of Rs.20 lakhs. 5. This writ petition is therefore disposed of modifying the conditions stipulated in Ext.P6 order to the extent of directing the petitioner to remit an amount of Rs.20 lakhs (Rupees twenty lakhs only) within a period of ten days as condition for the order of stay that has been granted and clarifying that, the estate owned by the petitioner shall be the charge for the amounts that are assessed as tax on the WPC 4285/2014 4 petitioner. The petitioner shall produce a copy of this judgment before the Assessing Officer for compliance. The second respondent shall take steps to dispose of the appeal preferred by the petitioner expeditiously. Sd/- K. SURENDRA MOHAN Judge jj /True copy/ WPC 4285/2014 5 "